SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(HP) 453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Bharuch Enviro Infra Structure Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Protector and Gamble Home Products Private Ltd. and Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 18 of 2019
Decided On : 11-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
R.L. Sood, Adv., Arjun K Lal, Adv., Rahul Mahajan, Adv., Maan Singh, Adv.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correct valuation and court fees, and the consequences of incorrect valuation on the validity of the decree.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Pecuniary Limits - Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968 - [JURISDICTION] - [CIVIL SUIT] - [Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC] - The court discussed the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in entertaining and adjudicating upon the civil suit, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees, and the legal provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968. The court highlighted the importance of correct valuation and court fees, and the consequences of incorrect valuation on the validity of the decree. The judgment also emphasized the applicability of Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC in returning the plaint for presentation before the court with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaratory decree, setting aside a letter, and other reliefs. The defendants contested the suit, claiming improper valuation for jurisdiction and court fees. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for an ad-interim injunction, which was challenged before the appellate authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned trial Judge lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit and make a valid adjudication. The court also noted the importance of correct valuation and court fees, and the consequences of incorrect valuation on the validity of the decree. The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and directed the return of the plaint for presentation before the court with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

Issues: The issues involved lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, valuation of the suit for jurisdiction and court fees, and the applicability of Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC in returning the plaint for presentation before the court with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the importance of correct valuation and court fees, and the applicability of Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC in returning the plaint for presentation before the court with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and directed the return of the plaint for presentation before the court with the appropriate pecuniary jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The plaintiff, the, respondent in the instant petition, instituted a suit, seeking hence there through rendition of a declaratory decree, for, setting aside hence letter bearing No. Baddi Infra/Treatment Charges/2018- 1203-1205, of, 23.7.2018, on anvil, qua it breaching, the, terms, and conditions, of, the agreement, entered, on 5.12.2016, hence, interse the contesting litigants, besides also strived for rendition, of, a decree, of, mandatory injunction, against, defendants No. 1 and 2, for, the latter being enjoined, to, restore the membership, of, the plaintiff company, with, defendants No. 1 and 2, (a) hence, for there through, the, plaintiff company being permitted, to, use the CETP facility rather for, ensuring disposal, of, the, industrial waste/effluents, emanating from, its manufacturory. Obviously, also, a, decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the afore objections, and also, qua therewith, was, hence espoused, in, civil suit bearing No. 1410, of, 2018. However, the lis nowat engaging, the, contesting litigants, appertains, to, lack, of, pecuniary jurisdiction, vesting, in the learned trial Judge, to, entertain, try, and, make an adjudication, upon, the afore civil suit. Consequently, for, resting, the, afore lis, it is, initially incumbent, to, extract, the, apt para, qua therewith, para whereof, stands extracted hereafter:

    "15. That the value to the mandatory injunction is___ and a Court fees of Rs. 150/-is being affixed on the plaint and for the relief of permanent perpetual injunction the value of the suit is Rs. 150/-and a Court fee of Rs. 150/-is affixed on the plaint and for relief declaration is Rs. 150/-and a Court fees of Rs. 150/- is affixed on the plant."

A perusal thereof, unveils, qua vis-a-vis, each, of, the afore relief’s, rather the, valuation, of, the suit, for, the purposes of jurisdiction, and, concomitantly, also vis-a-vis, court fees, hence becoming assessed, in a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each, and, also upon, each, of, the afore quantified sums, of, jurisdictional valuations, rather, besides, vis-a-vis, each, of, the afore relief’s, the, proportionate apposite therewith, hence Court fees, rather becoming standing affixed, hence, on the plaint. However, the defendants, had, instituted written statements thereto, and, claimed, that, the afore relief’s rather becoming un-grantable, to the plaintiff, given, the plaintiff making repeated reminders made upon it, to, deposit, a, sum of Rs. 64, 33,825/-.In the written statement, instituted by the defendant, vis-a-vis, the plaint, it was also contended, that the suit becoming not properly valued, both for the purpose, of, jurisdiction, and, also for the purpose, of, court fees'.

2. Be that as it may, during, the pendency, of, the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Judge concerned, the, plaintiff-Company, instituted therebefore, an, application, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, (i) wherethrough, during, the pendency, of, the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Judge concerned, hence pronouncement, of, an ad-interim injunction, was espoused, rather for directing, the, defendants/petitioners herein, to, maintain status quo ante, as existed before the issuance, of, the challenged letter bearing No. Baddi Infra/Treatment Charges/2018-1203-1205, of, 23.7.2018, (ii) and, also, a relief, was espoused therein, for, directions, being meted upon the defendants, to, connect the pipelines, which had hitherto become blocked, and, also dis-connected, rather on 20.6.2018. Upon the afore application, an affirmative order was made, and, thereagainst, a challenge, is cast, before, the learned appellate authority/Court.

3. The learned counsels, for, the plaintiffs, contends that, the afore reared remedy, and as stands availed, by the defendants, rather constituting, the, befitting apt, and, legally recoursable remedy, (i) and hence the, casting, of, the instant petition, herebefore, is, rather a remed

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top